Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Subject for debate: Medical marijuana

I've never had a strong opinion about marijuana, medial or otherwise. The correlation between regular use and humdrum academic performance was pronounced -- though neither perfect nor exact -- in my high school and college experience, but not much more so than the correlation between alcohol and scholarly dissolution.

I saw and have seen no such correlation between occasional recreational use of either substance and any adverse effects, so I tend not to get exercised about it. I believe it's possible to use pot responsibly and moderately, and I believe it's an easy call to legalize and regulate medical marijuana as the General Assembly seems poised to do, even on the chance that some people will fake their way into getting prescriptions.

It's beats me why so many conservatives who generally complain about the "nanny state" and beat the drum for liberty tend to be champions of harsh drug laws.

Where are you on this idea?

Posted at 07:07:00 PM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"Where are you on this idea?"

I watched a friend wither away as breast cancer slowly killed her.

I don't know if medical marijuana could have made her final days less horrific, but I do know that if medical marijuana had been decriminalized she could have tried.

I have friends who function very well, professionally and as parents, and they've also smoked pot regularly since college. I think laws regulating substance use in adults should be relaxed considerably. Medical marijuana? Shouldn't even be a question.

The Illinois DUI law is actually has a zero-tolerance threshold for drivers who have any amount of cannabis (or other illegal drugs) residue in their system as opposed to drivers with alcohol in their system.

Don, I would say that if a driver is involved in a serious accident, he/she will be tested for all illegal drugs and charged accordingly. This happened in 2010 with a New Trier student charged in a hit-and-run:

I don't believe recreational use or abuse of a drug should limit its legitimate use for medicinal purposes. As mentioned above, this is a no-brainer.

Like Zorn, I don't understand the right's objection to this important medication and its needed application. Especially when they demand women obtain unnecessary medical procedures when requesting an abortion.

Don, I will go even a step further and say that the Illinois DUI law is unnecessarily harsh toward drivers who tested positive for residue of marijuana in their systems, where the science is available (as with alcohol) to determine a threshold for impairment:

From the same USA TODAY link (op-ed) I posted earlier:

"Blood tests can detect two important chemical compounds that come from marijuana. One of them, THC, makes a person high and lasts for hours. The other inactive chemical, created as your body neutralizes THC, can linger in a person's system for up to a month.

"In Arizona [and Illinois], state law says if you have either of these compounds in your blood, you are guilty of a DUI.

[...]

"Some states at least try to acknowledge the science. In Washington state, for example, a person is considered impaired if a blood test shows 5.0 nanograms of marijuana's active ingredient. That level has been compared to a .08 limit for alcohol."

Medical uses? Absolutely. That's supposed to be the whole point of the FDA. Study, legalize and regulate.
Recreational? Hell no. My experience has been brain dead zombies who wouldn't know a good life decision if it walked in and smacked the joint out their mouths.

Don, to answer your questions, no, the science is not available for law enforcement to test drivers on the spot for marijuana. That's not to say that law enforcement doesn't have other options available. They can observe a driver's appearance/behavior and can administer a field sobriety test. The link below advocates the following policy:

"MPP recommends a policy similar to most state laws on driving under the influence of alcohol: A driver who fails a roadside sobriety test should be required to submit to a blood test by a trained medical professional — or risk criminal and administrative sanctions."

"MPP recommends a policy similar to most state laws on driving under the influence of alcohol: A driver who fails a roadside sobriety test should be required to submit to a blood test by a trained medical professional — or risk criminal and administrative sanctions."

MrJM +1. Driving while under the influence of ANY substances...alcohol, marijuana, hydrocodone, aerosol paint...should be punished.

Medical Marijuana should be a slam dunk. In 1995, I was helping make pot brownies for my best friend's father, who was sufferring from cancer. I don't regret for a minute helping make his last 8 months tolerable.

"MrJM +1. Driving while under the influence of ANY substances...alcohol, marijuana, hydrocodone, aerosol paint...should be punished"

Agreed. But how? We are obviously going to accept the widen use of marijuana, but we are not preparing for the consequences, especially looking through the lens of lowering the alcohol levels even further.

Public safety is a HUGE issue, but seems to be getting the short shrift here.

Wait a second, why should the government care if people want to turn themselves into "brain dead zombies" (your term, not mine)?

What consequences are we not prepared for and why would government want to lower public consumption of alcohol? As long as we have rules about using substances and driving, and the like, I have a hard time seeing a government interest or public safety concern here.

I'm hard-pressed to understand the benefits of continuing prohibition and interfering with personal health choices.

It's a complete no-brainer and I suspect the time it's taken to pass has much more to do with the powerful Big Pharma lobby than the actual health effects, which are negligible with occasional recreational use, and proven to be palliative for many illnesses.

We've already taken the public stance that tens of thousands of traffic deaths each year are worth the utility we gain from being able to drive (could you imagine what air travel would look like if the fatality numbers were similar?). The handful or so of extra traffic accidents caused by stoned drivers will be similarly "worth" the hundreds of thousands who would benefit from the legalization of pot for medicinal use.

First of all - the health effects associated with regular marijuana use compared to regular alcohol use is no-contest.

Alcohol is an addictive depressant that the body treats as a poison, which technically it is. You can die from drinking too much of it. It dehydrates your body, destroys your liver and brain, weakens the immune system, and is loaded with calories. The list goes on.

Marijuana affects your body in a completely different fashion, and in a much more natural way. It is a euphoric, not a depressant, it doesn't dehydrate you, it doesn't kill brain cells or your liver, it is not physically addictive, and you can't overdose on it. The worse you can do is affect your lungs by smoking A LOT of it over a long period of time, and even that can be avoided by using vaporizers. And the medical benefits as a pain killer and appetite stimulant have been proven beyond question.

Regarding the driving issue - I'm with the consensus here; I'm fine with zero tolerance. Other states that have already legalized are blazing the trail here with new field tests, but it is truly difficult to gauge how 'high' someone is and whether they should be driving or not. That said, I'd rather have stoned drivers on the road than drunks - they're paranoid and drive like old ladies, whereas the drunks think they're invincible and Van Diesel behind the wheel.

@BrianE - paranoid and cautious driving is EXACTLY what the studies are showing. To wit:

"Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the formers users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence.”

I actually agree with Greg J, here! Back in college in the 60s I avoided pot, mostly because I didn't like the feeling of losing control (same as alcohol; I like my beer, but am not a big drinker), and, as a singer, I wasn't happy about putting any smoke in my lungs. However, particularly in the medical case, I'm for it. A friend of mine, before she had her double knee replacement, used it because it was the only thing that really worked for the pain (I know she didn't use it at work or driving, but especially so she could sleep). Also, AIDs & chemo patients, who often have severe loss of appetite, find it very helpful to increase their appetites.

We do have a funny way to treat the drug problem here. The main reason pot is a "gateway" drug is NOT because it leads to other addictions, but because the nature of where you have to buy it is what leads to those addictions. If it were available more easily & less criminally, that problem would probably go away. Heroin is a MUCH bigger problem in the suburbs, according to recent news stories. I also remember when morphine was not used in the hospital (and, having had a couple of relatives in hospice recently, that truly is a wonder drug in these cases) because they were afraid the patient (usually terminal) would get addicted! As if that mattered.

So for me, YES to medical marijuana, and also YES to decriminalizing small amounts, like Cook County has done. Let's regulate and tax it too!

This is yet another reason why we shouldn't make health care a public good but let's put that aside for now because we're not going through that here. The costs of health care for the percentage of stoners who can't afford it on their own cannot possibly outweigh the costs of monitoring, harassing, prosecuting, and jailing the people who are caught with marijuana.

There are laws that deal with public safety that apply regardless of whether you are drunk, stoned, naturally reckless, having a bad day, or anything else. Are you seriously concerned with the threat to the public posed by marijuana users? They are some of the least violent people I've ever encountered and the only danger they pose is to the snack section at 7-11.

It is absolutely ridiculous to hide your preference for expensive nanny state blue laws behind a nebulous concern for health care costs and public safety.

I also think it should be legalized both for medical and recreational use. Driving while high, though, is a different story. Too much caution, as tb cites that marijuana can cause, is also a problem. Driving way too slow can cause road rage amongst other drivers, for example. I am not condoning road rage, or that drivers shouldn't be expected to endure delays, just that the more of them that they encounter, the more likely issues will come up.

I think pot should be legalized and taxed up the yin yang, like alcohol and cigarettes. I also believe that people with terminal cancer should be allowed to smoke, snort, huff or inject anything that gives them relief.

As a current resident of Northern California, however, I have a hard time with the sleazy tent show that the "medical marijuana" industry has become around here. Folks with medical degrees are shamelessly willing to write weed prescriptions to treat everything from lumbago to insomnia to halitosis. The local pusher -- er, I mean, brave medical marijuana clinic operator -- in my town was recently elected to the city council and now serves as Vice [snicker] Mayor. I guess I'd be OK with that if he were upfront about the fact that he's running a shady business selling dope to aging hippies -- but his campaign literature made him out to be a heroic figure doing god's work in the community. Puh-Leaze!

"The results to date of crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes. … [In] cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group.”

@MO - that's some pretty weak sauce there - but funny! Despite the fact that the studies are finding that being stoned does not significantly impair one's ability to drive, you're honestly worried that there will be a massive influx of helium-foot drivers that may tenuously lead to more road rage, and therefore marijuana should continue to be banned? Really?

@tb, No I want it legalized. I just don't want people to drive when they are stoned. Smoke it, eat it, whatever you want at your own home. I understand that it has been tested and found to not impair their driving. If they are overly cautious when they are DUI with marijuana, that can have an affect on traffic too. The person doing 35 in a 45 zone with one lane of traffic can be quite aggravating, for example. Once again, I want to legalized, but not while driving.

My thinking's along the same lines as Elmo.
(There's a sentence I thought I would never use...)

There's gotta be some boundaries set, and society and government have to agree where to set them. "Promote the general welfare" is still in the first sentence of the Constitution, after all, right beside the "blessings of liberty." We have so many mind- and mood-altering substances at our disposal already. How much is enough?

I won't pretend to deny that it isn't completely arbitrary on my part; personal experience tips the scale. I will also admit to assuming a skeptical posture to a majority of the recreational-use research I have seen.

Hmmmm, ... that's a thoughtful view and a lot there worth pondering. Yes, there have to be boundaries set but we're not in agreement on the type of boundaries. In my opinion, the boundaries should be set based on the harm to third parties. I don't see that in the case of marijuana. How many mind- and mood-altering substances are enough? I don't think it's the government's place to set a limit on variety because you could end up in the odd situation of prohibiting substances that are less harmful than legal ones simply because the less harmful ones are newer.

"It's beats me why so many conservatives who generally complain about the nanny state' and beat the drum for liberty tend to be champions of harsh drug laws."

It's probably not moderate conservatives who feel that way, but social conservatives, who wrongly identify marijuana with the counterculture, and would rather oppose that than remain ideologically consistent. There are also lawmakers who support harsher marijuana laws because they are beholden by campaign contributions to the private prison industry lobby, and filling prisons with nonviolent drug "offenders" is good for business.

Personally, I don't like the effects of marijuana (anymore). I don't want people driving within at least 12 hours after using it; no one under at least 18 should have access to it; and while it can be relatively harmless if not abused, I don't think it improves most people who regularly use it. it becomes a crutch, albeit one less destructive than opioids or alcohol. And if you're not already a genius, weed most likely didn't help your grades.

However, the amount of money this country wastes searching it out, confiscating it, prosecuting dealers, etc. is absolutely obscene, and ruinous. We need to decriminalize it federally and follow the states' leads. Colorado already has built infrastructure around it and it's part of the state's economic engine. Unfortunately, we're following a policy that was created at the federal level in the Thirties, that doesn't benefit us in the slightest, if it ever did. No one who wanted to smoke weed ever was prevented from doing so (other than by a "drought).

I'm OK with the ID to buy Claritin, etc. though. It's a pain, but if it stops any meth from being produced, it's worth it. We should channel all the money we spend chasing marijuana producers and users into demolishing the meth and heroin industries.

I'm pretty socially conservative as I'm sure you can attest from our various scrums but I have a more permissive view on the drug issue than most liberals have. Perhaps I'm an outlier among my socially conservative brethren but National Review (not exactly the house magazine of the counterculture) got ahead of this issue 15 or 20 years ago with an entire issue devoted to the thesis that the war on drugs is lost and it's time to legalize. They weren't only talking about marijuana either.

The war on drugs IS lost, Greg, we can certainly agree on that, and I'm all for a progressive drug policy, but I doubt I'll ever coming around to the idea that meth, heroin, cocaine, etc. should be legalized; they are simply too ruinous. I'm aware that the status quo is what makes it a lucrative and violent criminal business but there has to be some other solution than saying "meth is legal." I don't know what the solution is, but I watch "Traffic" every time it's on. Best drug movie ever, with the possible exception of the unrated version of "Requiem for a Dream." Honorable mention: "Drugstore Cowboy."

Although I haven't touched it in more than 30 years, I'm all for complete legalization of medical and personal use. Pot should have the same caveats as does alcohol: a) don't give it to the kids, and 2) don't DUI. That's it!

Regarding "[It] beats me why so many conservatives who generally complain about the 'nanny state' and beat the drum for liberty tend to be champions of harsh drug laws": It's a measure of the quality of commenters CofS draws, I think, that as Greg J .has demonstrated, the most prominent conservatives here are more thoughtful and consistent than that.

On further reflection, I am setting the bar too high (no pun) for marijuana, but I still need hard data on variable potency, reasonably safe intake levels, demographical effects, etc. Mellowing some brain cells just doesn't compare to the REAL walking dead of meth or crack addicts, when taking the broader view. As you and Kip and others have noted, the war on marijuana is a train wreck. It will continue to be corrected as those who recognize this occupy more positions of authority.

I look at the handful of colors and shapes I toss down my throat every morning and think, "Is this what we are?" Consumers of chemicals so we can be happier, or feel better, or just get through the day?

Traffic was a terrific movie and the war on drugs was over before it started. There is nothing unconservative about acknowledging that and telling government to mind its own business.

@Jon B.,

Focusing on potency and harm is rational but I still can't get on board with the government telling people what types of substances one can use. I think individuals should be left alone to decide for themselves whether to use or stay away from drugs. I don't think it's worth spending resources on policing those decisions.

Greg J.,
Any opinions on the Dutch drug laws? I can see US laws developing in that direction, where "soft" drugs are allowed only in designated shops, but "hard" drugs are still illegal.
Maybe you might consider that progress, but not the ideal of official non-involvement?

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.